Chavez cracks down on Pro-Democracy activists

Sand

The champion of the common man, Hugo Chavez has clamped down on activists of Sumate, a group that promoted a rederendum against el Presidente Chavez in August of this year. Theyve been charged with conspiring to destroy the republican system as Sumate has received a $31,150 grant from the National Endowment for Democracy, a non-partisan organisation funded by the US congress that aids pro-democracy groups around the world. The unfortunates who dared to oppose Chavez are facing up to 16 years in jail for their crimes against the people.

Gershman, President of the NED, claims that this move to jail political opposition is a step towards dictatorship and that the grant was for electoral education, and claims otherwise are propaganda. In the NEDs defence they have provided up to $ 7 million dollars to NGOs in Venezeula starting in 1993, well before Chavez came to power, but not too long after Chavez led his abortive military coup attempt so its hard to claim their involvement in Venezeula is directed against Chavez personally, as is claimed. That said Gershing has admitted they have not funded any government groups.

Im just wondering what the broadly uncritical supporters of Chavez in his struggles against the american imperialist pigs make of this. Is this another step for the populist Chavez on the road to a populist dictatorship? Or are tragically required step against the entrenched anti-democratic forces threatening Chavezs struggle for the little people?

The man has set up a constituional assembly controlled by his supporters, seperate to the Venezeualan legislature. Using this he has set up a committee in August 1999 with the power to remove judges without consulting any other branch of government. This assembly declared a legislative emergency in the same month, and forbade the Venezuelan legislature from meeting instead placing law making powers with a newly created 7 man committee.

The new constitution that chavezs assembly came up with renamed the county, extended the term of the Presidency to 6 years, and established a unicameral legislature ( who needs checks and balances afterall? ). Chavez then backed a bill in november 2000 that allowed him to rule by decree for a year - an enabling act if you will. He has also attempted to dissolve Venezeulas labour unions ( they opposed him - big mistake ) instead placing all workers in a state controlled ( read chavez friendly ) union - enabling act, state controlled union......that reminds me of another party and their populist leader, cant put my finger on it though....

He made a mistake in his re-writing of the constitution though - he placed in the ability to recall the President, something exploited by the opposition to his less than liberal democratic rule. Of course they had to elected the 3 million plus signiatures required twice before the National Electoral Council ran out of exscuses to prevent a recall. In August 2004 Chavez won the recall with 59% of the vote, despite claims of widespread fraud from the opposition. Jimmy Carter approved the recall saying that the opposition should accept the result and work together towards the future - rich considering Chavez at every opportunity sidestepped any legislature process that involved compromise or finding broad agreement. Carter a mont later reversed his position, stating there had been several irregularities in the referendum and the results were not completely trustworthy. The Government has recognised it used the nations money to campaign for Chavez, which is clear evidence of electoral fraud under Venezeulan law.

Lets be honest here, if this guy was mates with George Bush instead of Fidel Castro people would be pointing at all this and deriding another tin pot dictator.

pete

on the other hand:

In Venezuela, Cambodia, and other nations, IRI—unlike other government-funded democratization groups—has increasingly focused on training opposition parties intent on toppling elected governments. The institute is one of several democracy-promotion groups financed by USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED); others include the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the AFL-CIO’s international wing. Under their bylaws, the groups are supposed to work with actors across the political spectrum in democracies. In Haiti, for example, NDI, which is controlled by Democrats, worked with members of Aristide’s party as well as opposition parties, and was lauded for its grassroots efforts.

IRI, by contrast, has increasingly come under attack for choosing sides. In Venezuela, the institute dramatically expanded its presence in 2001 and 2002 as President Hugo Chavez ratcheted up his anti-U.S. rhetoric. IRI’s Latin America program was led by Georges Fauriol, who had previously worked at a conservative Washington think tank alongside Otto Reich, who has been Bush’s closest adviser on Latin America policy. Reich, who according to Congress’ Government Accountability Office conducted “prohibited covert propaganda” on behalf of the Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s, is a former ambassador to Venezuela who had frequently denounced Chavez.

In Venezuela, IRI staffed its program with Bush allies and campaign supporters; in turn, in 2001 the administration increased funding for IRI’s activities in Venezuela sixfold, from $50,000 to $300,000—the largest grant any of NED’s democracy-promotion organizations received that year.

At the time, all the major U.S. democracy-promotion groups were active in Venezuela, including both IRI and NDI. But documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that while NDI worked with parties across the political spectrum, IRI staffers spent much of their time cultivating the opposition. IRI worked closely with Acción Democrática, a group that, IRI’s own documents acknowledge, “refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Chavez presidency.” IRI also tutored opposition figures, including Caracas mayor Alfredo Peña, an outspoken Chavez critic, on how to create a political party. And despite a warning from the National Endowment for Democracy not to take sides in Venezuela, IRI also used its own money to bring opposition figures to Washington, where they met with top U.S. officials.

In April 2002, a group of military officers launched a coup against Chavez, and leaders of several parties trained by IRI joined the junta. When news of the coup emerged, democracy-promotion groups in Venezuela were holding a meeting to discuss ways of working together to avoid political violence; IRI representatives didn’t attend, saying that they were drafting a statement on Chavez’s overthrow. On April 12, the institute’s Venezuela office released a statement praising the “bravery” of the junta and “commending the patriotism of the Venezuelan military.”

That drew a sharply worded email from NED president Carl Gershman, a copy of which was obtained by Mother Jones. Gershman wrote: “By welcoming [the coup]—indeed, without any apparent reservations—you unnecessarily interjected IRI into the sensitive internal politics of Venezuela.”

From "The Republican Coup Connection" http://www.world-crisis.com/analysis_comments/987_0_15_0_C/

pete

List of Venezualan NED grants & FOI info here: http://venezuelafoia.info/NED/NED-index.htm

chewy

i saw the headline in the paper read till it said "...National Endowment for Democracy..." then laughed out loud and turned the page...



"...who helped oppossion groups in the recent referendum.."

Sand

Should the NED then be funding Chavez and his government? Its clear hes not a democrat as wed recognise the term, utilising enabling acts, attempting to place unions under state control and forbidding legislature to meet. An ex coup leader and now doing his best to subvert any process that doesnt bend to his will. If the NED funded a similar politician who wasnt mates with Castro it would be pointed at as evidence of corruption.

The NED has been working in Venezeula before Chavez came to power. Its the NGOs who need help to protect even the concept of a liberal democratic process in Venezeula, not the President whose attempting to subvert it. Looking at your link the main complaint in each case is that the NED is funding groups that disagree with Government policies. Well, darnit I guess they shouldnt disagree! I particularly love the use of " " in the Civil Society section around.... [Chavez 's] public disregard for democratic processes and institutions... I think given the mans record its a statement of fact not requiring " ". On the other hand Gershman has claimed that in the 21 years of the NED funding groups in 80 countries this is the first time groups it has funded has faced such charges.

Captain Trips

Sand wrote:

The champion of the common man, Hugo Chavez has clamped down on activists of Sumate, a group that promoted a rederendum against el Presidente Chavez in August of this year.

1. UNions: supported by US to limit his ability to control oil exports. He wanted to remove the US as a middleman and use a more primitive but effective barter system, thus making his country less of a bitch to the IMF/US/yaddaydadda banks.

2. Slapping the term "Democracy" on something doesn't make it so. The People's Free Republic of Ultra Democracy doesn't necessarily make it one. CHavez was voted in by popular majority, it didn't suit the US. Also, a similar pattern can be seen in other countries that think of moving away from the dollar for oil sales. Perhaps they should be arrested for being involved in an attempted coup?

I am wondering how well the Democratic People's Liberation of Iraq is going......

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Should the NED then be funding Chavez and his government? Its clear hes not a democrat as wed recognise the term

He may not be a democrat, but he certainly believes in democracy and looking after his people.

- Won first election by the largest percentage of voters in 40 years.
- On being elected he turned a portion of his presidential palace into a school for street kids.
- widespread immunization and food distribution programs for children, mostly nonexistent under previous Venezuelan presidencies
- Wealthy businesses, who had not been required to pay taxes previously, are now required to do so.
- Set up referendums for changing laws for the better of his people.
- Set up limits on how long a president can run (by referendum)
- Won re-election by even more votes then before.
- Survived a military coup which was orcastrated by the Rich in the country (See the documentry "The revolution will not be televised". It's an eye opener, as well as "Llaguno Bridge. Clues of a massacre")
- Survived a recall referendum with independant bodies saying the voting was 'completly fair' (compare that to 2004 US election where the independant body said it was 'mostly fair').
- Stopped another coup attempt on him in 2004.
- Set up a question time on national Television where anyone can ring in and hask him a question.

Sorry but the more I read about this guy the I realise how good a president he is. How anyone can spin him as evil is beyond me. About the only questionable thing I can find about him is his meeting with Saddam.

Kind of intresting the possible links to the US in his first coup on him, and the current training of terrorists on US soil who plan to overthrow him in a bloody fashion.

... Reading the history of his country, it is quite clear the elite rich pretty much raped the country while 80% were living in poverty before Chavez arrived. If you want to see how democractic his opposition is have a look what laws they enacted just a couple of hours after they started their coup.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

- On being elected he turned a portion of his presidential palace into a school for street kids.
- widespread immunization and food distribution programs for children, mostly nonexistent under previous Venezuelan presidencies

Disgraceful behaviour. Should be locked up for life for that sort of thing.

- Wealthy businesses, who had not been required to pay taxes previously, are now required to do so.

And I thought he could sink no lower....

jc

bonkey

Sand wrote:

the National Endowment for Democracy, a non-partisan organisation funded by the US congress that aids pro-democracy groups around the world.

It would appear that NED is hardly the poster-child of good democratic responsability....

...or am I falling prey to left-wing propaganda designed to distort the truth about this shining beacon of democratic ideals?

And am I wrong in believing that it would be illegal for a non-US-funded NED-equivalent to try doing in the US what NED does outside the US?

jc

mycroft

Yeah and the kind of behaviour of the anti chavez types documenting just one example here

Sand

I did ask what the highly uncritical supporters of Chavez thought about his kailing of dissidents and I guess I got my expected answer - not a single concern raised about Chavez's policies.

Won first election by the largest percentage of voters in 40 years.

one man, one vote and one time.

On being elected he turned a portion of his presidential palace into a school for street kids.

Set up a question time on national Television where anyone can ring in and hask him a question.

Great, cheap political stunts havent lost their popularity yet I see. I wonder do you believe the calls to Chavez on this show arent heavily vetted and prepared?

Survived a military coup which was orcastrated by the Rich in the country (See the documentry "The revolution will not be televised". It's an eye opener, as well as "Llaguno Bridge. Clues of a massacre")

Plotted and carried out one of his own as well. Oh and he also survived a general strike by firing 18,000 union members. The Venezeulan courts ruled these dismissals to be illegal and ruled they should be allowed to return to work. Chavez and his buddies in the oil industry have repeatedly stated they will ignore the courts ruling.

But hey, who needs rule of law after all? Chavez is busy dealing with such constraints as judicial independance as noted by Human Rights Watch which *also* claims that Venezeulas democracy is also being threatened by Chavez.

Viva El Presidente!

Survived a recall referendum with independant bodies saying the voting was 'completly fair' (compare that to 2004 US election where the independant body said it was 'mostly fair').

Yeah, bar the CNE going on national TV to announce they found a recording of the CNE President declaring a victory for the opposition, while the polls were still open. The recording was obviously faked, and more worryingly was apparently a known parody to boot. Nah, claims like that wouldnt be a clumsy attempt to demonise the opposition would they?

Oh and CNE attempted to restrict the numbers of observers, control their movements, restrict access to technical reports and locations, restrict public speech of the observers and restrict the time span of the observers - to the point where the EU declined to send observers because they felt minimum conditions did not exist. This is according to the Carter Center who attended despite these conditions. Carter center also warned against the partisan nature of the CNE in 2004, and considered the 2000 elections flawed but not to the point where they affected the result. Continuing trends there.

Set up referendums for changing laws for the better of his people.

Human Rights Watch disagrees with you.

widespread immunization and food distribution programs for children, mostly nonexistent under previous Venezuelan presidencies

Wealthy businesses, who had not been required to pay taxes previously, are now required to do so.

Great - well I guess that means his subversion of any instution that is not fully under his thumb is okay then. Mussilini wasnt so bad, he did make the trains run on time and revolutionise the social services in Italy.

therecklessone

Sand wrote:

I did ask what the highly uncritical supporters of Chavez thought about his kailing of dissidents

No you didn't.

Lennoxschips

"Pro-democracy activists" my arse. The US wants oil and is funding anyone that will overthrow Chavez by any means possible, democratically (via referenda and elections, in which the people keep voting for Chavez) or non-democratically (via illegal military coups, which have also failed).

Sand

No you didn't.

Im just wondering what the broadly uncritical supporters of Chavez in his struggles against the american imperialist pigs make of this.

"Pro-democracy activists" my arse. The US wants oil and is funding anyone that will overthrow Chavez by any means possible, democratically (via referenda and elections, in which the people keep voting for Chavez) or non-democratically (via illegal military coups, which have also failed).

So it is then correct for Chavez to subvert democratic institutions, ignore rule of law, jail political opponents and end judicial independance on the basis of the terrible enemy abroad, whose crimes include welcoming the end of chavez rule or funding political activists opposed to him - bastards eh?

Face it - if this happened anywhere else youd be up in arms about it. Look at the reaction to Bush and the Patriot Act - theyre apparently the 4th Reich according to many.

DadaKopf

Thre's also the little point that Súmate not only represents a middle-class and rich-class in Venezuela, they represent a white middle- and rich-class. And Chavez is black-indigenous and draws his support primarily from the black and indigenous poor.

There's a racist dynamic at work in Venezuela, and to my mind, Chavez is challenging WHITE POWER! Although whether he really does avoid becoming a populist authoritarian leader is anyone's guess. I certainly don't think he's a populist now, that's just a term used by conservative Western, particularly American, media.

But you know, he's beginning to implement a lot of measures endorsed by the World Bank. So he's not that radical. He's nonetheless trying to consolidate democracy and his political position so Venezuela can exercise strategic liberalisation rather than leave Venezuela open to the economic disasters of state-led development in the 1960-70s and ultra-neoliberalism in the 1980-90s. It's a tough balancing act.

However, looking at trends around South America, democratisation processes are getting stuck, like in Argentina. So it's certainly not all systems go for Venezuela. But then, no two countries are exactly alike.

Redleslie2

Sand wrote:

one man, one vote and one time.

Riiiiight. Local elections went smoothly and the next general election is due in 2006 apparently.

As for the new evil constitution. From CBS.

The new constitution increases workers wages, boosts Indians' rights, increases environmental protection, and gives housewives the status of workers, guaranteeing them social security benefits.

Chavez says the charter also will help wipe out some of the world's worst corruption and break up the stranglehold of political parties that most Venezuelans blame for squandering the country's oil reserves.

But the constitution also eliminates the Senate, reduces civilian control of the military and allows Chavez to serve up to 13 years in office and dissolve the single-house National Assembly under certain circumstances. Critics say it will allow Chavez, a former paratrooper who led a failed 1992 coup, to impose authoritarian rule.

Chavez is likely to become more authoritarian if US pressure and the resistance of the rich to any change intensifies, imo.

Lennoxschips

So it is then correct for Chavez to subvert democratic institutions, ignore rule of law, jail political opponents and end judicial independance on the basis of the terrible enemy abroad, whose crimes include welcoming the end of chavez rule or funding political activists opposed to him - bastards eh?

Face it - if this happened anywhere else youd be up in arms about it. Look at the reaction to Bush and the Patriot Act - theyre apparently the 4th Reich according to many.

I'm not sure, if you attempted a military coup against Bush you'd be lucky to get away with only a jail sentence.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

Lets be honest here, if this guy was mates with George Bush instead of Fidel Castro people would be pointing at all this and deriding another tin pot dictator.

Oh, that’s different... four legs good, two legs bad, and all that jazz...

DadaKopf wrote:

But you know, he's beginning to implement a lot of measures endorsed by the World Bank. So he's not that radical.

Wasn’t his stated motivation for the 1992 coup that he opposed the unpopular World Bank austerity measures implemented by then President Carlos Andrés Pérez? Not a bad U-turn on both his positions on democracy and the World Bank.

Redleslie2 wrote:

Chavez is likely to become more authoritarian if US pressure and the resistance of the rich to any change intensifies, imo.

Priceless - if Chavez ends up a brutal dictator the US will still be to blame

mycroft

Sand wrote:

Great, cheap political stunts havent lost their popularity yet I see. I wonder do you believe the calls to Chavez on this show arent heavily vetted and prepared?

Any proof of this or just cynicism? And what about Cheney forcing people to swear an loyality oath before rallies? All politicans preform PR Chavez just puts himself on live TV. Furthermore Chavez allowed a documentary crew from this country a degree of access that was just incredible, and yet you fail to believe he's not open.

Plotted and carried out one of his own as well. Oh and he also survived a general strike by firing 18,000 union members. The Venezeulan courts ruled these dismissals to be illegal and ruled they should be allowed to return to work. Chavez and his buddies in the oil industry have repeatedly stated they will ignore the courts ruling.

Buddies? BUDDIES? Chavez was brought to power by a mandate to among other things to nationalise the oil industry to ensure the ordinary people saw some of the wealth of their country, and not to have to be sucked out of the country with profits going to wealthy elite, and the US. It's going to be an ugly bitter struggle to gain control of the Oil.

Yeah, bar the CNE going on national TV to announce they found a recording of the CNE President declaring a victory for the opposition, while the polls were still open. The recording was obviously faked, and more worryingly was apparently a known parody to boot. Nah, claims like that wouldnt be a clumsy attempt to demonise the opposition would they?

For starts its common for TV states to prerecord pieces before an event. Witness the fuss that occured a few years ago when Sky news accidently showed a pre recorded piece announcing the Queen mum's death several years before she actually kicked the bucket.

Secondly Venezulan media is in an awful state witness the behaviour of the media during the coup. Re editing footage to claim that pro chavez supporters fired into a crowd when in fact they themselves were on an empty street taking fire from snipers.

Oh and CNE attempted to restrict the numbers of observers, control their movements, restrict access to technical reports and locations, restrict public speech of the observers and restrict the time span of the observers - to the point where the EU declined to send observers because they felt minimum conditions did not exist. This is according to the Carter Center who attended despite these conditions. Carter center also warned against the partisan nature of the CNE in 2004, and considered the 2000 elections flawed but not to the point where they affected the result. Continuing trends there.

Facts speak for themselves, the coup failed because millions of citizens took to the streets to protest at the overturn of democracy. Chavez is enormously popular. Deal with it.

Great - well I guess that means his subversion of any instution that is not fully under his thumb is okay then. Mussilini wasnt so bad, he did make the trains run on time and revolutionise the social services in Italy.

The fact is Chavez is trying to restore some semblance of democracy and fairness and is fighting an enormously wealth group backed by the US who want to keep oil and power to a wealthy elite.

DadaKopf

the corinthian wrote:

Wasn’t his stated motivation for the 1992 coup that he opposed the unpopular World Bank austerity measures implemented by then President Carlos Andrés Pérez? Not a bad U-turn on both his positions on democracy and the World Bank.

Yeah, it was. And the austerity measures destroyed the economy so opposing them was a no brainer. What's more important, and I think he realises it, is to balance trade openness with strategic intervention by a reformed state.

Kind of what the new cuddly, caring, sharing World Bank endorses.

But he also has to manage public opinion which is highly polarised. That means brining the poor into the economy, and encouraging the grumpy middle-classes back in, too. That's why the government has set up Plan de Consencio Nationale in an effort to bridge the gaps between rich and poor and to get employment and investment agreements, codes and standards up to scratch to encourage inward investment and stem capital flight.

What has to happen is for him to embed democracy enough so it can't be easily reversed if/when the rich lads get back in.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

Yeah, it was. And the austerity measures destroyed the economy so opposing them was a no brainer.

What do you base your view that the austerity measures destroyed the economy? They saved ours after all.

Even were it so, are you arguing then that the 1992 coup was justified in order to save the economy?

What's more important, and I think he realises it, is to balance trade openness with strategic intervention by a reformed state.

You think he realizes it?

What has to happen is for him to embed democracy enough so it can't be easily reversed if/when the rich lads get back in.

No argument there. Whether that is ultimately what he will do is another matter.

DadaKopf

What do you base your view that the austerity measures destroyed the economy? They saved ours after all.

By the late-1970s, Venezuela's oil-based model of state-led develoment collapsed. This was in large part due to the rapid decline in oil prices which fuelled the country's external debt. On Black Monday, oil prices fell even further and Venezuela's debt service rose to 37% of GDP by 1985. President Pérez accepted an IMF structural adjustment package in 1989, at the height of strict Washington Consensus policies. The Venezuelan government increasingly lost control of its own economy as the IMF pursued a policy of exchange liberalization, trade liberalisation and concentrating incomes on the middle-class. The country experienced modest growth between 1989-90. But this didn't work, as the monied classes spent their money on luxury imports rather than domestic capital investment, inflation increased dramatically, which contributed to a balance of payments crisis.

Then President Pérez was voted out and President Caldera broke with the IMF and immediately set exchange and price controls to stem the crisis. They didn't work, so he liberalized the exchange system again. Because of the IMF liberalisation package, capital outflows couldn't be controlled so the cycle continued until 1998-2000 when Chavez' economic policies managed to stabilize the economy again, through, for example establishing a Macroeconomic Stabilization Fund paid for by oil exports, restricting oil production, and improving governance. Between his election in 1999 and just before the PDVSA oil strike in 2001, economic growth went from -6.1% GDP to 2.8% GDP. Then the economy got worse before it got better.

Because oil is Venezuela's major export, its economy is extrmely vulnerable to shocks. The economy needs to diversify, and Chavez is trying that. But the liberalisation of the 1980s exacerbated those vulnerabilities, sending the country into an economic nosedive.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

By the late-1970s, Venezuela's oil-based model of state-led develoment collapsed. This was in large part due to the rapid decline in oil prices which fuelled the country's external debt.

Incorrect. Venezuelan oil prices went from USD 2.05 in 1970 to USD 13.36 in 1979. A year later they almost doubled to USD 25.20. That’s the opposite of a decline from what I can see and well exceeds inflation for the same period.

Then President Pérez was voted out

He was impeached, not voted out, for corruption, in 1993.

Between his election in 1999 and just before the PDVSA oil strike in 2001, economic growth went from -6.1% GDP to 2.8% GDP. Then the economy got worse before it got better.

Actually GDP growth has been:

1999   +5.00%
2000   +3.24%
2001   +2.79%
2002   -8.88%
2003   -9.20%

Although I couldn’t find figures for 2004, I do believe that they are positive, although whether this is more than just a short-term rally is another matter. Additionally, while the PDVSA oil strike in 2001 may have affected economic growth, GDP had already been shrinking prior to it taking place, and it appeared to simply have accelerated the existing decline.

Because oil is Venezuela's major export, its economy is extrmely vulnerable to shocks. The economy needs to diversify, and Chavez is trying that. But the liberalisation of the 1980s exacerbated those vulnerabilities, sending the country into an economic nosedive.

How is Chavez diversifying the economy and how did economic liberalization exacerbated those vulnerabilities?

And again and regardless of the above were you previously arguing then that the 1992 coup was justified in order to save the economy? Perhaps only condoned it?

therecklessone

Sand wrote:

I did ask what the highly uncritical supporters of Chavez thought about his kailing of dissidents

I took the word kailing to be either a typo or a misspelling of the word killing, seeing as kail is a type of cabbage. Awaiting correction on that, but in the mean time I'll say it again. No you didn't. Neither of your first two posts mentions killing of dissidents.

[edit]Just realised you meant jailing not killing. Disregard post[/edit]